Programming machines to make the trip and then seeding with human life seems to be the best answer to distance.
(repeat ad infinitum for the rest of the galaxy, humans live only on the frontier)
The Destiny spaceship travels from one Solar system to the other, and occasionally dives into stars to refuel itself.
One day I might learn how to have a kid AND read books :/
Bonus: it lets me practice voices for DM'ing DnD games
Some mechanical robot/starship storing frozen embryos for 100 years to be released on a far-away exoplanet, the starship taking care of them while they grow up and learn how to live on this new world - the beginnings of a new civilization - a technological adam and eve of sorts.
EDIT: To be fair, 1G over 100LY will result in a maximum speed around 0.9998c so I guess you would have to approximately approach light speed for this trip.
Go on vacation; come back; everyone's dead.
I mean (so Energy is massaccel^2) so does that make space and time equal to energy.
i need a coffee for this one*
What the GP post is referring to is called a 'relativistic rocket'. You can find plenty of calculators for them, like here [1]. It leads to really mind-bending scenarios. For instance a single human could easily travel a billion light years within their lifetime, requiring "only" to travel at 1G acceleration for 40 years. Of course in that time a billion years would have really passed outside of our relativistic rocket.
If it ultimately turns out that there is no fundamental law of the universe that makes long-term rates of relatively low acceleration impossible, then the future will be a simply unimaginable place. Time itself will start to lose meaning as it becomes as variable as distance is today, at least for those able to travel.
Joking mainly. With this much time dilation it would be fascinating to just send out tons of probes in different directions at high speed and constant acceleration - this would massively extend their service life - and potentially also massively extend our knowledge of the universe as well. Of course relatively to the people on Earth it would take a long ass time.
This pretty well describes what it's like walking around in a game. Everything looks and acts pretty normal and rational up close, yet I can walk across a continent in a few minutes, yet each individual step along the way looked normal.
Without exotic tech like anti-matter or bending space time nothing is particularly close to light speed. Even city size laser arrays are targeting 1-3% of light speed .... for a few grams!
It's a mind boggling amount of energy to get any decent fraction of the speed of light, even without the relativistic increases in mass.
[1]https://app.thestorygraph.com/books/31cd88d8-d8d3-4414-b38c-...
[3]https://twitter.com/A24/status/1499114323314151425?ref_src=t...
Here is a very short synopsis on the authors website in English: https://steinmuller.de/en/sf-literatur/science-fiction-buech...
You've got people living their every day lives, when a probe from space lands and starts producing aliens. At first it's treated as a strange curiosity, but with time the aliens begin to make inroads conquering the planet. Ending twist: the aliens are humans, and the "people" were aliens!
If we were serious about spreading life, we could loaded up some rockets with basic organisms and throw them onto whatever worlds we want to seed, and then a few million years of evolution should take care of the rest.
But then, if we have progressed to that level of technology, where we can send cells or even just DNA with the machines to be cultivated far away in the distant future... would we even bother? Would we even consider ourselves distinct from the machines by then? Honestly I'm not sure. It could very well be that we consider our creations to be our "children", so to speak. Destined to inherit the universe as we pass gradually into the dust from from which we came. It seems inevitable if we eventually crack AGI or artificial consciousness.
It is like Voltaire, Rousseau, Locke, Milton, Hobbes, Rawls never even existed and we don't have any sort of coherent understanding of political philosophy and how power is gained and enacted at the consent of the governed.
I also find that discussions of interstellar travel tend to conveniently ignore the fact that a society that develops to the point where this is feasible, must necessarily also have developed to the point of a fully post-growth economy, which leads to fundamental questions of why that society (or parts of it) would seek to undertake interstellar travel at all. It's a boring answer, sure, but many facts of life are quite boring.
Completely depends on if super-intelligence is possible from that AGI model, and if so, how fast the ramp up will be to super-intelligence.
The problem for insects is not that humans "dominate" them (in fact most insects have total "freedom"); the problem is that humans do not take the concerns of insects into account for any of their decision making.
Biological evolution takes millions of years to improve human intelligence. Artificial intelligence will be able to develop and deploy self-improvements within years, compounding its abilities.
All real power stems from old men talking in country clubs and golf courses. The super-smart people work in labs and universities and earn decent salaries while worrying about publication and citationd statistics and journal impact factors.
How does the AGI go golfing?
Or we could, you know, take better care of the planet we’re already on.
We could be doing our absolute best and still be surprised pikachus anyways. And there's no scifi remedy that will help us resolve these problems, we're not even K1, much less K2 - who's on Earth when it comes dies.
As the only known example of intelligent life in the observable universe, we should be doing everything we can to preserve ourselves. Having everyone on one planet is not a good idea if you're looking for survival on geological timescales (and/or have bad luck).
The "robots" will have little incentive to seed humans when they get there.
Conversely, dreams are fragmented and implausible. You can train yourself to check this to lucid dream (become aware that you are dreaming).
Obviously this is heavy anecdata, but I've never heard a scientific explanation of how to be certain whether or not you're dreaming (or as Descartes describes, being deceived by a demon).
Isn't every subjective experience, almost by definition, unable to be tested scientifically?
We can objectively measure someone's brain activity during sleep, but we can't really measure their subjective experience. Implying that everything made up of subjective experience (like consciousness) can't be measured. Which also implies it can't be proven by scientific means. So in response to the GP comment, I'm not sure we can "know you're awake" (in the scientific sense, at least).
It's wildly impractical to live your life like that, but at the end of the day we just don't know and probably can't know.
So if you train yourself to check your watch for consistency (in your normal everyday life), your unconscious will continue the practice in your dreams, and you'll notice the inconsistency.